Social stratification and social inequality
- Размер24,33 Kб
Men, R. Dahrendorf asserts that “the system of inequality which we call social stratification is only a secondary consequence of the social structure of power” and modern Russia is a good example to prove of. A person is viewed to show that he belongs to a certain stratum by using both objective and subjective criteria.
The objective criteria are those to describe the level of education, income, property, power or occupation, the subjective ones are those to describe the level of somebody's honour, reputation or prestige in the eyes of other people. Theories differ in numbers of criteria but they agree in understanding that each stratum includes only those people who have approximately equal income, power, education, prestige etc. seeing them as the basic criteria of social stratification.
In other words, social stratification has to do with ranking of people as individuals or groups in the society. All societies everywhere show some degree of stratification. Some societies are egalitarian, some are highly stratified.
For instance, in the primitive communal society inequality was insignificant, and social stratification did not exist, so the society was egalitarian. All complex societies are stratified societies with a high level of inequality. Inequality gave birth to castes, then to classes.
But the principal sociological perspectives interpret this concept differently. M. Weber spoke of a class as an entity comprising people who are cohered by economic interests in acquiring goods or getting income and who interact in the labour or goods market.
In the society, classes as well as strata have a certain social status which is determined by a corresponding way of life. That's why some theorists define social stratification as the hierarchical arrangement .Скачать